指示動詞「來」、「去」的原為一組以說話者為基準點指示客體位移方向的不及物動詞。然而經過語法化(grammaticalization)的演變，指示動詞已發展出相當多元的語意。本文旨在探討現代閩南語的指示動詞「來」(lai5)和「去」(khi3)的各種語義。我們發現閩南語指示動詞除了表現空間趨向義外，經過語法化演變至非空間意義後，在表達說話者主觀態度功能上，有著比國語更為豐富的表現。然而，指示動詞的各種語義隨著在格式中位置的不同，呈現的語義也會有所不同，因此為了能更清楚的掌握閩南語指示動詞的各式用法，我們採用格式語法(construction grammar)的角度來分析閩南語指示動詞在格式中的各種意義。

我們發現指示動詞每種語意的展現，都出現在有特殊限制的格式，即空間意義或非空間意義各出現在不同限制的格式中。指示動詞的空間意義表現，其中最為重要的為參照點的定位，「來」表示的方向為接近參照點，「去」則是遠離參照點。一般來說參照點位置為說話當下說話者所處地點，然而為了表達某些社會性的語用功能，「來」的參照點可以轉移至聽話者身上，「指示動詞 + 處所詞」此一格式可以幫助我們定位參照點所在。而處所詞的有無也可以確保指示動詞空間性意義的一個指標，我們可以從格式中處所詞的有無看出格式的演變和語法化過程之間也有著互動關係。從語料中可以觀察到非空間意義的指示動詞在格式中通常不會再與處所詞搭配，並且會與非自主動詞搭配出現。指示動詞的非空間意義表現，用在祈使語氣中的「來」可以表示說話者的意志和參與；而用於陳述句則常與說話者主觀態度有關，「來」表示說話者置身事內的態度，「去」表示說話者置身事外或無法掌控的態度。閩南語指示動詞主觀性意義的發展，正符合Traugott(1989)年所提出的語法化趨勢。

本文第一章為引言；第二章介紹前人的研究及理論；第三章開始介紹指示動詞的空間趨向性意義；第四章討論動趨結構中的指示動詞；第五章探討指示動詞的非空間趨向意義；第六章為結語。

The deictic motion verbs ‘to come’ and ‘to go’, originally, are a pair of intransitive verbs, which show the motion of figure of which the speaker is the deictic center. However, a host of meanings of the deictic motion verbs have been derived through grammaticalization. Therefore, this study intends to investigate the polysemy of the deictic motion verbs lai5 ‘to come’ and khi3 ‘to go’ in Taiwan Southern Min.

In our data, we have observed that the deictic motion verbs lai5 ‘to come’ and khi3 ‘to go’ in Taiwan Southern Min, in addition to their spatial and directional meanings, have derived non-spatial meanings through grammaticalization. That is, these two verbs (i.e., lai5 ‘to come’ and khi3 ‘to go’), in the non-spatial sense, can be used to express the speaker’s subjective evaluation and mood. However, when the deictic motion verbs occur in different positions of a construction, their meanings are found to change. In order to examine the different uses of the deictic motion verbs lai5 ‘to come’ and khi3 ‘to go’ in Taiwan Southern Min, we have adopted the construction grammar in our analysis. This study finally concludes that the polysemy of the deictic motion verbs lai5 ‘to come’ and khi3 ‘to go’ in Taiwan Southern Min is concerned with their interaction with other elements in the construction.

As for the organization of the present study, Chapter 1 is the introduction. Chapter 2 reviews a handful of previous works, as well as the primary theory adopted in this study. Chapter 3 discusses the spatial meanings of the deictic motion verbs. Chapter 4 illustrates and discusses the Taiwanese deictic motion verbs lai5 ‘to come’ and khi3 ‘to go’ when they occur in the directional construction. In this chapter, we also compare their different uses between Taiwan Southern Min and Mandarin Chinese. Chapter 5 is the discussion of the non-spatial meanings of the deictic motion verbs in Taiwan Southern Min. Finally, Chapter 6 concludes this study and summarizes major findings.

中文書目

仁田義雄. 1997.《日語的語氣與人稱》，北京大學出版社。

王錦慧. 2004.《「往」、「來」、「去」歷時演變綜論》，台北： 里仁出版社。

周遲明. 1956.〈漢語的連動性複式動詞〉，《語言研究》，1956年第一期，頁23-58。

馬慶株. 1997.〈”V來/去”與現代漢語的主觀範疇〉，《語文研究》1997年第三期，頁：16-22。

______. 2004.《憂樂齋文存-馬慶株自選集》。天津：南開大學出版社。

連金發. 1997.〈台灣閩南語的趨向補語—方言類型與歷史的研究〉，《中國境內 語言暨語言學》，第四輯，頁：379-404。臺北巿：中研院歷史語言研究所。

______. 2003.〈十六世紀及現代閩南語指示動詞的語法化〉，《國際中國學研究第六輯》，頁：379-410。

曹逢甫. 1998.〈台灣閩南語中與時貌有關的語詞“有” “ψ”和 “啊”試析〉，《清華學報》新28卷第三期，頁：299-344。

郭維茹. 2005.《指示趨向詞”來”、”去”之句法功能及歷時演變》，國立台灣大學博士論文。

梅廣. 2004.〈解析藏緬語的功能範疇體系—以羌語為例〉，《漢語史研究：龔煌城先生七秩壽慶論文集》，頁：177-199。

陸儉明. 1985.〈關於’去+VP’和’VP+去’句式〉，《語言教學與研究》。1985年第四期，頁：18-33。

陳澤平. 1992.〈試論完成貌助詞 “去” 〉，《中國語文》第二期，頁143-146。

______. 1996.〈福州方言動詞的體和貌〉，《動詞的体》中國東南方言比較研究叢書第二輯，頁：225-253，香港：中文大學。

黃丁華. 1959.〈閩南方言裡的人稱代詞〉，《中國語文》，1959年12月號，頁：571-574。

湯廷池. 1979.〈『來』與『去』的意義與用法〉，《國語語法研究論集》，頁：301-320。台北：學生書局。

劉月華. 1980.〈關於趨向補語「來」、「去」的幾個問題〉，《語言教學與研究》。 1980年第三期，頁：36-44。

______. 1998.《趨向補語通釋》，北京：北京語言文化大學出版社。

劉寧勛. 1998.〈《祖堂集》“去”和“去也”方言證〉，《古漢語語法論集》，北京，語文出版社，頁：674-682。

鄭良偉. 1992.〈台灣話和普通話的時段-時態系統〉，《中國境內語言暨語言學》第一輯，台北：中央研究院歷史語言學研究所，頁：179-232。

齊滬揚. 1996.〈空間位移中主觀參照「來/去」的語用含義〉，《世界漢語教學》第4期。

日文書目

陳順益. 2004.「台湾語と普通話の方向表現に関する対照研究―來去を中心に、日本語との対照も兼ねて」日本：東京大学博士論文。

英文書目

Bybee, J., Perkins, R., and Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar- Tense,Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Clark, Eve V. 1974. Normal States and Evaluative Viewpoint. Language 50: 316-332.

Comrie, Bernard. 1976 Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of the Verbal Aspect and Related Problem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fillmore, Charles J. 1966. Deictic Categories in the Semantics of ‘Come’. Foundation of Language 2: 219-227.

_______, Kay, Paul, and O’Connor, Mary C. 1988. Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Construction: The Case of Let Alone. Language 64: 501-538.

_______. 1997. Lectures on Deixis. Stanford, California: CSLI. Publications.

Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Chicago and London: Oxford University Press.

Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge Universaty Press.

Hongladarom, Krisadawan. 1996. On the Epistemic Meanings: A Study of Tibetan Deictic Motion Verbs. Mon Khmer Studies 25: 15-28.

Huang, Shuan-fan .1978. Space, Time and the Semantics of Lai and Qu. 中國語言學會議論集. 台北：學生書局，55-66。

Iwasaki, Shoichi. 1993. Subjectivity in Grammar and Discourse: TheoreticalConsiderations and a Case Study of Japanese Spoken Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Jakendoff, R.S. 1997. The Architecture of Language Faculty. Cambridge,Massachussets: The MIT Press.

Keifer, Ferenc. 1994. Modality. In Asher and Simpson(eds) V: 2515-2520.

Kreszowski, Tomasz P. 1993. The Axiological Parameter in Preconceptual Image Schemata. In Richard A. Geiger and Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (eds.) Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language: 307-329. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kuroda, S.-Y. 1973. Where Epistemology, Style, and Grammar Meet: A Case Studyfrom Japanese. In Anderson, Stephen R., and Paul Kiparsky (eds.) A Festschrzft for Morris Halle:377-391 New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Lakoff, Gorge and Mark, Johnson. 1980. Metaphor We Live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1985. Observations and Speculations on Subjectivity. Iconicity in Syntax. Haiman: 109-150.

Lien, Chinfa. 2002. Grammatical Function Words 乞，度，共，甲，將，and力 in Li4 Jing4 Ji4 荔鏡記 and Their Development in Southern Min. In Dah-an Ho (eds.)
Papers from the Third International Conference on Sinology: Linguistic Section.
Dialect Variation in Chinese. Institute of Linguistics, Preparatory Office.
Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan. p179-216.

Lin, Shuang-fu. 1975. On Some Aspect of the Semantics and Tonal Behavior of Taiwanese Lai. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 3:108-128.

Lyons, John.1982. Deixis and Subjectivity. Loquor, Ergo Sum? In Robert J. Jarvella and Wolfgangt Klein (eds.) Spech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics: 101-124. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.

Matisoff, James A. 1991. A Real and Universal Dimensions of Grammaticalization in Lahu. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Hene (eds.) Approaches to Grammaticalization 2: 381-454. Amsterdam: Jonh Benjamins.

Pustejovsky, J. 1991. The Generative Lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17: 409-441.

Smith, Carlota S. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Kluwer: Academic Press.

Stefanowittsch, A. 2003. The English Imperatives: A Construction-Based Approach.
The Annual Meeting of DGFS (Munich, February 2003) as Part of the Workshop Form and Function of Sentence Type.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English. Language 65: 31-55.

Talmy, Leonard. 1975. Semantics and Syntax of Motion. In J.P. Kimball (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 4: 181-238. London: Academic Press.

Vendler, Z. 1957. Verbs and Times. The Philosophical Review 66:143-160.

Wilson, Deirdre and Sperber, Dan. 1986. Mood and the Analysis of Non-Declarative Sentences. Relevance, Communication and Cognition. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.